ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2022
Effect of Impella 5.5 on Preexisting Functional Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical applications of Impella 5.5 for acute severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation: a bridge to destination therapy report-case series and review.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) is increasingly common. Moderate/severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is commonly seen in patients presenting with decompensated heart failure and is associated with worse outcomes. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used to provide hemodynamic support for ongoing CS. There is no description of the impact of Impella device on hemodynamic response when used in combination with preexisting FMR. Methods: Retrospective review of patients aged ≥18 years, who underwent Impella 5.5 implant for HF-CS, and who had a transthoracic echocardiogram performed pre- and post-Impella. Results: Of 24 patients, 33% had moderate-to-severe/severe FMR, 38% had mild-moderate/moderate FMR, and 29% had trace/mild FMR on pre-Impella transthoracic echocardiogram. Additional right ventricular assist device was simultaneously inserted in 3 patients, of whom 1 had severe, 1 had moderate, and another had mild FMR pre-Impella. Despite maximally tolerated Impella unloading, 6 patients (25%) had persistent moderate-severe/severe FMR, and 9 (37.5%) patients had persistent moderate FMR. Overall, however, there was a decrease in central venous pressure, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure, serum lactate, and vasoactive-inotrope score at 24 hours post-Impella, and survival was high at 83%. Conclusions: In a retrospective cohort of patients admitted with HF-CS who underwent Impella 5.5 implant for hemodynamic support, Impella did not seem to acutely ameliorate FMR severity. Despite this, there was a significant improvement in hemodynamic response at 24 hours post-Impella. In carefully selected patients, especially those with isolated left ventricular failure, Impella 5.5 may provide adequate hemodynamic support even in the presence of higher severity FMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.